A think tank publishing on politics and ideology, covering corporate diversity, science funding, research ethics review, and public policy.
Commenters discuss its pieces on Microsoft's diversity policies and IRB reform, with some noting its focus on the Great Awokening and seeing it as reactionary.
> Would you argue that a cult that loses members as they gain knowledge and alternative mental models should be protected from the savagery of educated minds due to its loss of adherents?
Are you arguing that sociology and anthropology and other more conservative hostile departments are in some way more educated than economists? Or that academia is not a hostile environment for conservatives? I think the pursuit of truth is a great idea and wish more academics believed in it.
> John's (and I'd probably be on firm footing to assume your) presumption here is that political affiliation automatically means discriminatory bias and inherent exercises in partisanship.
I’m not presuming anything. There’s ample research on this. I wouldn’t say there’s automatic discriminatory bias or exercise of partisanship but it exists and it’s not state. See for example https://www.cspicenter.com/p/academicfreedom “Across three Anglophone countries, a significant portion of academics discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotion, grants and publications. Over 4 in 10 US and Canadian academics would not hire a Trump supporter, and 1 in 3 British academics would not hire a Brexit supporter.”
> I wouldn't call it a universally bad assumption, but it's also likely not a terribly consistent one across the universe of universities and colleges.
Who cares if it’s consistent? If it consistently holds in a subset of schools that’s bad. As it happens one sees open displays of hostility to…
Most of the fixes, the tilting of the scales in their favour, do have victims.
Innocent people who just happen to look wrong, who get discriminated against so the favoured people can be quotaed in. Many companies refuse to fulfill positions even if they have qualified candidates if none of the candidates checks the right identity boxes.
Microsoft, for example:
https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-means
Harvard's admissions rates which are hilariously weighted against Asians: https://i.imgur.com/eB92to4.png
You're kidding yourself if you think people who have nothing to do with the bad conditions the policies ostensibly try to correct for aren't being hurt.
Of course, insistence on policies like that doesn't come from nowhere. The education system is absolutely rotten:
A couple samples of the blatant racist rhetoric the universities spew against white people daily. You can write fun shit like this and keep your job since the target is acceptable:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/
Or Zeus Lombardo, who's a professor of education and has been spreading this shit for at least ten years. His recommended reading is "fun":
https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1450083463726518276
"Whites learn to be white. That suggestion by Thandeka is that whites are not born white. They have to become white. And her suggestion is that white children who were not white originally - they were born human. Little by little, they have to be abused into…
Every so often the Trump administration seems like they might actually care about getting my vote. A recent executive order making it easier to do research on psychedelic therapy is another example [0]. A policy shift to reform IRB review for social and behavioral science [1] would be really targeted at me.
I know politics is hard to talk about, but I generally think that we underappreciate the importance of being agentic in politics. Obviously I prefer that our government follow the law and uphold the constitution. But the many ways in which the current administration got things done by being quick, by "flooding the zone" [2], and by using tactics that apparently no one noticed before [3-4] are worthy of study and emulation.
I know the obvious response to this is to note that a lot of what they're doing is illegal, and again, I think that's bad. But they really make the current Democratic leadership seem out of touch and old [5] by comparison. Combined with policy positions that are far from the median voter's [6], it doesn't make for a winning look/platform.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/accelerating-medical-treatments-for-serious-mental-illness/
[1] https://www.cspicenter.com/p/its-time-to-review-the-institutional
[2] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/02/trumpian-policy-as-cultural-policy.html
[3] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/10/27/russell-vought-profile-donald-trump
[4]…
Right but we didn't have to do any of this measuring for Jewish, Chinese, Italian, or Irish people. Yet discrimination against these groups has markedly improved over time. This happens naturally as people mix together and realize they're not so different, and as older generations die. This integration process naturally deemphasizes superficial differences.
You seem to be avoiding the question. This process clearly works, and doesn't require any metrics collection or monitoring. Furthermore, DEI initiatives are clearly harmful to organizational goals[1] and clearly disenfranchise people who are just interested in colour-blindly carrying on with their work. Why do we need them?
PS. I'm hoping to preempt a no true Scotsman style reply about DEI. The example below was undertaken at a major corporation with the world-class consultants.
1. https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-means
> I'm not sure if that's really true or just a stereotype
Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology - https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
In fact, quite shockingly to many, that prevailing twofold sentiment, which sees stereotypical thinking as faulty cognition and stereotypes themselves as patently inaccurate, is itself wrong on both counts. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201809/stereotype-accuracy-displeasing-truth
Most stereotypes that have been studied have been shown to be approximately correct. Usually, stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50, making them some of the largest relationships ever found in social psychology. - https://www.cspicenter.com/p/the-accuracy-of-stereotypes-data-and-implications
There will be no consequences for google. We all know this happens.
A past suit by a recruiter had emails filed as evidence to the court where recruiters were told to cancel all interviews with candidates who were not women or Black. [1]
And yet if you mention this, you're the racist. You're the White nationalist (even though the media celebrates Black nationalism).
Even so--they also have lawsuits alleging discrimination against promoting Black employees.
There's really nothing contradictory about this. Different individuals can be racist in different ways.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/01/google-job-quotas-favored-women-blacks-latinos-over-white-and-asian-men-lawsuit/
[2] https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-means